1 2025:CGHC:17696 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1107 of 2019 1 - Smt. Roshni Sahu W/o Late Govardhan Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Kopra, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Present Village Tamaseoni, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Sushma Sahu D/o Late Govardhan Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village And Post Kopra, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Present Village Tamaseoni, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Mohan Sahu S/o Late Chaituram Sahu Aged About 75 Years R/o Village And Post Kopra, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Present Village Tamaseoni, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Mehtarin Bai Sahu W/o Mohan Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Village And Post Kopra, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Present Village Tamaseoni, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh……………………………………..(Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1 - Mohan Lal Sahu S/o Salik Ram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Koundkera, Police Satation And Tahsil Rajim District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh……………………………………………..(Driver) Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.04.22 17:05:57 +0530 2 2 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Ram Ji Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Koundkera, Police Station And Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh……………………………………………...(Owner) 3 - The Branch Manager Theoriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Branch Office, Madina Building Jail Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh………………………….(Insurer) ---- Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (17.04.2025) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 12.10.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 684/2017 awarding a compensation of Rs.8,01,250/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants for their irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, is that on 02.11.2016 at around 2:10 PM, at Kopara-Panduka Main Road, driver/respondent No. 1 of offending vehicle (Hyundai Car) bearing registration No. CG- 07-AB-7002 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of Goverdhan Sahu (deceased), due to which Goverdhan sustained grievous injuries and died on spot and her wife who was also seated on the motorcycle also sustained injuries. A 3 report of the incident was lodged, based on which offence was registered. It is stated that on the date of the accident, age of the deceased was 48 years, he was a carpenter and was earning Rs. 7,500/- per month from his work. Due to the casual death of the deceased, there is an irreparable loss to the appellants/claimants. Therefore, the appellants (wife, children and mother-father of the deceased) preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,40,000/-. 3. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, assessed monthly income of the deceased to Rs.5,000, given 25% future prospects, deducted 1/4 income towards personal and living expenses and applied multiplier of 13 and awarded Rs. 7,71,250/-. Furthermore, Rs.70,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal in other heads. Thus, total Rs.8,01,250/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs. 7,500/- per month, but the learned Claims Tribunal has only assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month and awarded the said compensation amount including the amount of other conventional heads. The learned counsel urged that the Tribunal erred in not assessing the proper monthly income of the deceased. Learned Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has also awarded lesser amount on other heads, therefore, this appeal may be allowed and 4 amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 5. None appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of counsel for respondent No.3 that in view of facts and circumstances of case, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.8,01,250/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As regards the income of the deceased, though the claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.7,500/-. per month from his work, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced, but it cannot be said that the deceased was not earning anything from his work. Therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of the deceased, keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, wage structure prevailing on the date of accident, price index and cost of living etc. specially notification by Labour Department for minimum wages. Upon considering the aforementioned factors, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs. 6,206/- per month as minimum wages, at the relevant time of accident i.e. 22.11.2016. The annual income comes to Rs. 74,472/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 25% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 18,618/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 93,090/-. 5 10. The deceased was aged about 50 years and the claimants are wife, children and mother-father of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/4 which comes to Rs. 69,818/- (93090-23272). In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 9,07,634/-. The claimants are further entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses and as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, they are further entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 10,97,634/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 9,07,634/- 02 Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 03 Towards love and affection to each claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- (40000 x 4) Rs. 1,60,000/- 04 Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs. 10,97,634/- 11. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 10,97,634/-. After deducting Rs. 8,01,250/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,96,384/-. 6 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to get Rs. 2,96,384/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 13. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham